[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Meeting 10/17/2017

[Revolt]

John S:

> I am not able to attend Tuesday meetings, as I said, because of a recurring
> commitment.

This is good to know now.  The first time you mentioned this was only
a few days ago after a consensus was reached at the 3rd NB meeting.
As the wiki states, you can send a proxy member to block items you
don't agree with.


> I’m not unwilling to spend $400 from the general fund to repair the
> elevator. I would be willing to spend more than that if there’s a need. You
> haven’t come up with any plan for how to spend the money.

That's great.  You never asked for a "plan" for how to spend the
money.  I can not make a "plan" for where the money will go for future
elevator repairs (I cannot predict how and what will break).  You
asked for what the funds would be used for and I told you about many
things that currently need repairs.  The gate needs thousands of
dollars in repairs after being cut open by the fire department.  Now
that the money is secured and made available by consensus I can look
into different companies, their rates, and their quotes for doing
repairs.

>That’s what this
> discussion was for, which you don’t want to have.

I've been answering your Qs every single day, and have been fully
engaged in the discussion since day one.  I'm not sure where you get
the notion that I don't want to discuss things.

> I just want an actual good faith consensus
> process.

Me too, that is why I followed the NB Consensus guidelines.  That is
why I spent my time and energy to come to meetings, have real life
discussions with people, and answer lots of emails and questions here.
That is why I worked my ass off talking to people on multiple
occasions and organizing for help many months before even bringing
this up as a "big-C" Consensus item.  That is why I worked my ass off
getting to three meetings in a row and answering Qs and talking to
people in the community regularly.

>you didn’t present the same
> proposal at each meeting, and didn’t have a clear text of a proposal.

I did.  I posted to the NB Discuss on 10/11:

" I request that we establish an Elevator Repair Fund at Noisebridge.
This fund could be as modest or ambitious as people like, but I
believe a minimum of $400 per annual year would do a great deal to
benefit the space."

At the meeting I learned about the difference between General Fund and
Equipment Fund, so it was agreed on at the meetings that the elevator
was a "must need" item and that funds should come from the General
Fund.

Per answering your questions, I also clarified that the money would be used for:

1) to hire /outside/ professional help with elevator repair (from a
private company or union that would issue a receipt)
2) to purchase parts for the elevator (with receipts)

The proposal is very clear.  I find that I am repeating myself.  What
is the "clear plan" that you want?  It's cut and dry.  Now that the
money is available I can lookup companies and look into more parts to
do repairs.

> As I said, there was already $400 in funds available before the meeting
> where you claimed consensus

Not true.  At no point did you say "we have $400 available right now
for elevator repairs and we will always have $400/year available for
elevator repairs." This consensus item was not brought up just to
solve the problem now.  It is to have at least some money available,
consistently, for repairing the elevator at NB.

The fact that you want to use state-required ADA money solely for the
elevator without discussion about other disability needs at NB (or
with other disabled people at NB) is problematic.

> I think you’re stuck in an old model of open conflict at meetings

There was zero conflict at meetings.  Only total agreement that the
Elevator Repair Fund is a good idea.

> and on-discuss to make decisions at Noisebridge.

There wasn't any conflict on NB-Discuss, I was answering your
questions.  I only said you were being unexcellent when you emailed
/after/ consensus was reached at 3 meetings:

>I have some qualms about this being passed off as consensus...
>Whether or not someone is physically present at the meeting is not really pertinent.

This is untrue and is an attempt to derail how consensus works at NB.
That is unexcellent and it bothers me a lot.  People worked very, very
hard over the years to develop the consensus process we have today.
That is why there is a clear wiki page describing how it works and why
we talk about it at the meetings you choose not to attend.

> I think a big part of the
> communication issue is you refusing to use Slack, which has smoothed over so
> much discussion over the past two years.

I have already explained that I have disabilities that make using the
computer hard for me.  That is why I come to meetings and have
person-to-person interactions with people - assuming the elevator is
working and I can come into the space.  There should be no
discrimination against someone for not using an application like
Slack.  I am part of the community just like everyone else.

> You have not put together
> any kind of spending plan. You haven’t clarified in any written proposal
> where funds would come from. The only text presented, which is in the form
> of a meeting summary, is vague and confusing. You don’t want to discuss
> where money should come from

See above.  I have said over and over again in meetings and on
NB-Discuss that the money should come from the General Fund.  This was
agreed on at the last 2 meetings. Have you tried talking to other
people present at the meetings?

See the two items above, again, for where the money should go.  That
you think this is confusing is not my fault.  I cannot create a
spending plan when I don't know what will break in the future.  Again,
this money is to be made available for *future repairs* needed as
well.

> And this is all a moot point because the only actual spending proposal
> you’ve made is for parts that I already purchased and picked up at the PO
> box the day they arrived to deliver to the space. You have not made any
> other specific requests for funds.

Again, I have been super busy repairing the elevator, answering Qs,
and going to meetings.  I have not had time to call elevator companies
for quotes.  The elevator breaks often, it needs parts all the time
and in the future will need more.  We need money put away for that.
Why is this such a hard concept?

> If your goal is keeping the elevator in good repair, lots of discussion and
> community excitement and talk about fundraising is the way to do that.

That is what I have been doing since JULY.  Sadly, some people did not
decide to take this problem seriously until I raised a "Big-C" item,
which is sad.  For those of us with disabilities, the elevator has
been a major issue for a long time.

I was trapped in the elevator for the 10 year anniversary when I came
to present for 5mof.  Me and my friend were stuck in there for almost
20 minutes.  When I came for Chelsea Manning's talk it was still
broken, and someone had to carry Liz's scooter up a flight of steps.
I had to miss this talk because I had to spend over 5 hours doing
elevator repairs, because after 2 months the elevator was still broken
and no one was fixing it.  I have been having lots of discussions with
people for many months.  Only after that failed did I bring this up as
a "little-C" and "big-C" consensus item.

> Starting a big public email battle

I'm just trying to get funds for the elevator.  I have no interest in
starting a battle.  I would like access to Noisebridge just like
anyone else.

> You have not once attempted to reach out to me individually

Fair enough, I will contact you off list.

>I’m not unwilling to spend $400 from the general fund to repair the elevator.

Fantastic.  That makes much of this discussion a moot point then.

-Zach



On 10/22/17, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
> Zach,
>
> I am not able to attend Tuesday meetings, as I said, because of a recurring
> commitment.
>
> I’m not unwilling to spend $400 from the general fund to repair the
> elevator. I would be willing to spend more than that if there’s a need. You
> haven’t come up with any plan for how to spend the money. That’s what this
> discussion was for, which you don’t want to have.
>
> What I’m not willing to do is acknowledge that you sought consensus in good
> faith. There was ongoing discussion and debate. There was no specific
> written consensus proposal. My issue is with you claiming consensus you know
> you don’t actually have.
>
> Misusing funds? Give me a break. I just want an actual good faith consensus
> process. Even assuming a bad faith process based entirely on Tuesday
> meetings that not everyone can attend is valid, you didn’t present the same
> proposal at each meeting, and didn’t have a clear text of a proposal. I am
> not the only person confused about your proposal, which originally called
> for people being paid for working on the elevator, or unhappy with the way
> you’re going about seeking consensus through conflict instead of
> discussion.
>
> As I said, there was already $400 in funds available before the meeting
> where you claimed consensus. There is $720 more on the way, which can be
> matched by $720 from the equipment fund, which means $1,840 in initial funds
> available, against your original request of $400. That’s the magic of
> consensus, discussion, and community engagement, as opposed to conflict,
> stubbornness, and bad faith.
>
> I think you’re stuck in an old model of open conflict at meetings and on
> -discuss to make decisions at Noisebridge. I think a big part of the
> communication issue is you refusing to use Slack, which has smoothed over so
> much discussion over the past two years.
>
> I think that your decision to have open conflict instead of good faith
> effort to talk to people and make a plan of action is unexcellent.
>
> You have not once attempted to reach out to me individually before shouting
> “unexcellent” on a list with hundreds of people. You have not put together
> any kind of spending plan. You haven’t clarified in any written proposal
> where funds would come from. The only text presented, which is in the form
> of a meeting summary, is vague and confusing. You don’t want to discuss
> where money should come from. I understand that. But that’s what consensus
> means. Discussing where the money comes from and how to get it opens up new
> opportunities.
>
> And this is all a moot point because the only actual spending proposal
> you’ve made is for parts that I already purchased and picked up at the PO
> box the day they arrived to deliver to the space. You have not made any
> other specific requests for funds.
>
> If your goal is keeping the elevator in good repair, lots of discussion and
> community excitement and talk about fundraising is the way to do that.
> Starting a big public email battle and claiming consensus at a meeting about
> your specific ideas about money allocation (not actually written down in any
> proposal) when you know there is an ongoing discussion about how to do this
> is bad faith and counterproductive.
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 21, 2017, at 4:43 PM, Revolt <revoltrightnow at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> John S. are you unwilling to use $400/year from the General Fund for
>> elevator repairs?  Again, the Noisebridge Consensus Wiki states:
>>
>> "If a member does not attend a meeting, they are asserting that they
>> are comfortable with the decisions of those who do choose to attend,
>> whether or not they agree. "
>>
>> from: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process
>>
>> Refusing to acknowledge proper consensus and trying to block after 3
>> consecutive meetings which you did not attend is unexcellent behavior.
>>
>> If you refuse to provide this money for elevator repairs then you
>> would be mishandling Noisebridge funds and abusing your privileged
>> role as Treasurer of Noisebridge.
>>
>> The $200 that DBI is requiring for ADA access /does not/ need to be
>> spent on the elevator.  There are other ADA issues at Noisebridge that
>> could use this money.  For starters, you can use it to reimburse Kevin
>> P. for the caution tape he purchased on Amazon to better mark ADA
>> access in the space.  I would also like to use it to purchase some
>> quality ADA signage for the space and possibly do something about the
>> heavy glass doors always blocking up the entry way.
>>
>> Here is an example of a good ADA sign with braille:
>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/ADA-Sign-Wheelchair-Accessible-Tactile-Symbol-Braille-Plastic-6x9-Blue-White-/251892778533?epid=1800082539&hash=item3aa5fac625:g:fdIAAOSww5NZA8IK
>>
>> It would also be nice to use this money to add braille to key places
>> in the space for those with vision impairments.
>>
>> Money has not been available for elevator repairs, thus the consensus
>> proposal. I will make a separate reply to that later.
>>
>> Also please note, I have had surgery on my hands previously and typing
>> on these emails on the NB-Discuss is taxing me and is painful.  John
>> S, would you be open to coming to the NB meeting this Tuesday to
>> discuss these issues in more detail?
>>
>> -Zach
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10/20/17, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Liz,
>>>
>>> I think the initial thing was that the landlord had called for a repair
>>> after someone being 86’d broke the elevator. That makes sense, since the
>>> elevator is part of the building and not a part of Noisebridge. It’s
>>> their
>>> legal responsibility, but it’s not clear if we have anything in our lease
>>> to
>>> force them to keep it in good repair. So it’s not clear Noisebridge has
>>> paid
>>> for elevator repairs in the past or just notified the landlord, though
>>> I’m
>>> curious about that.
>>>
>>> Then things dragged out for over a month as the landlord claimed that
>>> licensed elevator repair people were booked solid. Then they came and
>>> said
>>> they did a repair, but there were still issues with it. So Zach and a
>>> few
>>> other community members did DIY repairs that seem to have it working,
>>> though
>>> people are advised to avoid using it unless they need to.
>>>
>>> I don’t think money is the issue right now since there is money set
>>> aside
>>> for repairs and more on the way, and the first requested parts ordered
>>> and
>>> delivered. I’m waiting for word of additional spending we should make,
>>> but
>>> haven’t gotten anything specific. The issue of whether or not
>>> Noisebridge
>>> should take on some of the landlord’s responsibility to repair the
>>> elevator
>>> was do-ocratically resolved.
>>>
>>> Money is now available in the low hundreds, and soon low thousands, for
>>> parts and professional maintenance. If expected costs expand to mid
>>> thousands or high thousands, I think we should figure out exact numbers
>>> so
>>> we can approach the landlord and say we’ll take on your responsibility
>>> here
>>> but need to work out a deal with you to reduce rent. Since no one has a
>>> specific ask above $40 so far, and those parts have already been ordered
>>> and
>>> are in the space, I don’t think we’re practically constrained by the
>>> money
>>> available.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> John
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Oct 20, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Liz Henry <lizhenry at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The elevator seems to have been in bad repair for some time.  I didn't
>>>> realize there was any particular limit on how much money we spend on
>>>> elevator repair.
>>>>
>>>> Are people not calling elevator repair services because of money
>>>> concerns?
>>>> The last I heard from Mitch and others about this, we have plenty of
>>>> money.
>>>>
>>>> Fixing the elevator shouldn't be an optional part of running
>>>> Noisebridge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's the deal here?  Who calls for a repair service, or decides not
>>>> to,
>>>> these days?
>>>>
>>>> I've been going around for years talking about how NB and other bay
>>>> area
>>>> hackerspaces are great about accessibility -- when we first moved
>>>> spaces,
>>>> I asked for wheelchair access and really appreciated that people took
>>>> that
>>>> seriously.   It has meant that I can recommend the space to others as
>>>> well
>>>> as having access myself.   Hope that can continue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Liz
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 2:25 PM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The original consensus proposal doesn’t mention the general fund at
>>>>> all,
>>>>> so in trying to understand how to actually allocate money, here’s my
>>>>> interpretation:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. $200 in state mandated spending has already been allocated to the
>>>>> Elevator Repair Fund.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. $720 is inbound to the Elevator Repair Fund. This will mean $920 is
>>>>> allocated specifically to elevator repair.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Matching grants from the Equipment Fund count towards Noisebridge’s
>>>>> yearly spending on elevator repair.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. If the Elevator Repair Fund and/or Equipment Fund are exhausted to
>>>>> the
>>>>> point that they can’t cover the mandated $400 of elevator repair
>>>>> spending
>>>>> per year, consensus is that the money should be made available from
>>>>> the
>>>>> general fund at that point.
>>>>>
>>>>> This level of detail matters since our spending and bookkeeping is
>>>>> more
>>>>> complicated than in the past. We have several distinct funds and need
>>>>> to
>>>>> account for them separately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Details and running totals can be found at
>>>>> https://noisebridge.net/finances
>>>>>
>>>>> If my interpretation of how to account for the elevator repair fund
>>>>> seems
>>>>> off to anyone, let’s talk about it and figure it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 2:04 PM, kprichard <kprichard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am only aware of the 2017-10-10 meeting notes writeup-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2017_10_10#Elevator_Repair_Fund
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Others may be aware of another version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:51 PM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can someone link to the actual text of the consensus proposal?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 1:32 PM, kprichard <kprichard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greetings, NB-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A meeting has occurred.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most notable, Zach's consensus item proposal from last week, of
>>>>>>>> creating a set-aside for elevator repair from the general fund, was
>>>>>>>> read again and has gone into effect without objection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meeting Summary-
>>>>>>>>  *   Announcements: 2017-10-30: Google "Playcrafting" game dev
>>>>>>>> expo;
>>>>>>>> ADA compliance floor markings added; City College is adding maker
>>>>>>>> spaces
>>>>>>>>  *   Finances: we have 9 months rent in the bank
>>>>>>>>  *   New members: open apps: Nicole (3rd week), Merlin (4th week;
>>>>>>>> deferred: not present)
>>>>>>>>  *   New philanthropists: open apps: Kelly A (1st week)
>>>>>>>>  *   Consensus Items: Zach's proposal to allocate general funds for
>>>>>>>> elevator repair was consensed ($400 to start)
>>>>>>>>  *   Discussion Items: (none)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2017_10_17
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Kevin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>